Sapp Brothers outlines Exit 27 travel center; asks Toquerville to defer parkway trail installation

Sapp Brothers officials told the Toquerville City Council on July 16 that the company plans a full travel center at Exit 27 and asked council to consider deferring construction of an 8‑foot pathway, curb and gutter shown in the parkway plans until state improvements are finalized.

The request came during a presentation by Dan Dunston, Sapp Brothers’ travel‑center lead, who described a planned travel center with a sit‑down restaurant, truck service facilities, quick‑serve concepts and other amenities aimed at truck drivers and travelers. Dunston told council the company expects a soft opening in late September to early October and is targeting a public ribbon cutting in October and a grand opening in the first quarter of 2026.

City officials and Sapp Brothers representatives then discussed a separate business item: a company request to defer construction of an 8‑foot shared path and curb/gutter along the SR‑17 parkway frontage adjacent to the site. Darren (assistant city manager, engineering specialist) told council the project plans and the city’s standards call for the pathway but that only the council can approve a formal deferral of the improvement. Sapp Brothers said its concerns are (1) safety: a path directly next to a high‑speed frontage could be underused and expose pedestrians to risk until surrounding development arrives; (2) cost and potential waste if UDOT later widens or reconfigures the interchange; and (3) near‑term low utility because the other side of the interchange currently has little to connect to.

Dunston proposed alternatives including (a) building the path now at company expense, or (b) providing the amount the company would spend on the path to the city and allowing the city to use those funds for higher‑priority trail work in the town core — and installing the path later when it would be clearly useful. City staff, councilmembers and the city attorney discussed legal and practical risks of long deferments: inflation and higher future costs, difficulty enforcing deferred conditions later, and the chance multiple developers might seek similar deferrals. City staff also pointed out that if UDOT removes a city‑installed path during future interchange work, UDOT has indicated it would pay to replace that facility as part of its project.

Council members raised alternatives including escrow arrangements to guarantee the funds would be available if the path is deferred, and the possibility that the city could accept and hold the money for eventual construction. Engineering staff said an escrow would require careful drafting because construction costs rise over time. The council did not vote on the deferment; the item was presented for discussion only and could be placed on a future agenda for formal action.

Why it matters: the choice affects immediate pedestrian safety, developer cost allocation, and whether a partially built roadside facility could be torn out and rebuilt later if the state changes the interchange.

Council next steps: staff will return with options (including proposed escrow language, a city‑ownership alternative and cost comparisons) if the council wishes to consider formal deferral or other agreements.